CA667/2023- Establishing Legal Merit Of Cases & Unlawful Restraint On Human Rights By Way Of s166 Orders.
On 17 November 2023, 73 leave applications were filed between the 19 courts of New Zealand- most of which remain deliberately ignored indefinitely in contempt of Justice Brewers s166 order for these leave applications to be filed for the legal merit of each case to be examined by a High Court Judge.- 10 November 2023: CIV-2023-404-002332 [2023] NZHC 3176
"[13] So, I emphasise that the order I am about to make does not preclude Ms Dunstan from bringing a claim which discloses merit. Or from continuing any existing proceeding which discloses merit. But, from the date of this Judgment in order to commence or continue any proceeding Ms Dunstan must first obtain the leave of a Judge of this Court."
Of serious concern are the 17 matters remitted to the high court from the Court of appeal in matter [2023] NZCA15- raised in para 2.6 of case on appeal. CA431/2022, CA449/2022, CA452/2022, CA522/2022, CA556/2022 –orders tab 7 bundle of documents relied on.
The one matter of the 17 actually heard has been a judicial review of Private prosecution CIV-2022-404-1376, [2023] NZHC 2742, 29 September 2023.
Astoundingly, this matter pertains to the same criminal offending of 6 parties- The appellant won her first appeal in the court of appeal over High Court decisions: by Justice Katz [2022] NZCA477 (CA114/2022) remitted back to the High Court for justice Lang to make decisions: 12 December 2022 ([2022] NZHC 3308- referred to in other decisions as “
” [2023] NZHC 3658 para [19] by Mr White stating: “an obiter comment in Dunstan v Auckland District Court did not bear analysis as, in his submission, Lang J had used “loose wording” to describe the physical act of filing.”
This matter remain unaddressed- again open to miscarriages of justice before the High Courts: CIV-2024-443-013 Dunstan v New Plymouth District Court Where Justice Grau issued a very important decision dated 7 March 2024.
All the while- each judge of each court was aware, as a registrar had accepted this filing and set down a call over- this case was bound by s 26(1)(a) CPA 2011 the and BINDING precedent of [2020] NZHC 2956 GREENDRAKE V DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AND MCCONNOCHIE, 10 November 2020: Justice Dunningham:
[50] As this error of law was pivotal to the ability of Mr Greendrake to continue his prosecution, I consider it is appropriate to make the following declaration: (a) The charges, having been accepted for filing by the Deputy Registrar under s 26(1)(a) CPA could not be rejected by a Judge under s 26(1)(b), and the requirement to issue a summons under s 33 was triggered [92] The Judge’s decision rejecting the charges for filing under s 26(1)(b) CPA is set aside. As confirmed by the declaration set out at [50] above, the charges were accepted for filing on 5 September 2018.
To briefly address the legal merit of each matter of “disputed”- legal merit:
(a) In D v The District Court at Manukau, Fitzgerald J – (breaching s 26(1)(b) CPA 2011) Binding precedent [2022] NZCA477 Dunstan v Auckland HC Justice Katz.- Ironically this error of law resulted in the second malicious and vexatious arrest CRI 2019-092-006687 further intertwined at (b) CA190/2022 and (d) CA421/2022
(b) CA190/2022- Distorting An appeal before Justice Gault ignoring Nicky Hagers precedent alleging a case of “The police knowingly misleading the courts” was identical to “malicious and vexatious prosecution”-counsel-“Ella Watt” had already been held in contempt by Venning J in other matters. CIV-2020-404-2003 Marc Robert Spring v Attorney-General & Anor – a precedent for counsel misleading Justice is now: m Ellis J’s judgment, R v Johnson & Brattle-Hemara [2023] NZHC 2948 – regarding Ben Vanderkolk (“the Crown Solicitor”)
(c) Habeas Corpus proceedings- indefinite detention proven by way of non-removal orders of two foreigners- Case Law for Habeas corpus orders granted without notice: CIV:2017-404-238 S V N & Anor Justice Foggarty sealed 24 February 2017.
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2022/02/23/family-court-shocking-practice-arresting-children.html
Carrie Leonetti states in her article: "The Family Court’s shocking practice of arresting children"
"Court judgments issuing these warrants use mundane, banal, and bureaucratic terms. Judges preemptively threaten parties with these warrants, warning if a parent fails not only to abide by their decisions, but also to agree that their decision is wise and infallible, then they will have “no choice” but to issue a warrant seizing their child.
This is not the behaviour of a judge in a desperate emergency with no other options. This is the behaviour of a tyrant using the threat to harm someone’s child to bully them into submission. It is the children who suffer trauma and develop fear and distrust of the civic institutions they are supposed to trust to protect them."
(d) Pertaining to LFC Riddells offending which has only escalated, with the matter of CA421/2023 Tanya Dunstan v Christina Riddell indefinitely stayed/ ignored due to this s166 restraint, to a breach of the client care 18.1 being the applicant in an s31 order- now liable for costs:
18. GUARDIANSHIP (WARDSHIP) OF THE COURT – section 31 of COCA 18.1 The lawyer should not make an application to the court for guardianship of the court (wardship), nor accept an appointment as agent for the court.
18.2 The lawyer should be aware that making an application for guardianship (wardship) will expose the lawyer to inter partes costs and the mandatory cost contributions award
And criminal offending of misleading the courts to obstruct justice and coerce subordinates to witness false affidavits resulting in private prosecution under CRI-2024-043-139 Dunstan v Riddell & Ors with co offender "MS G. Smith"
in addition to orchestrating 2 x false arrests under Judicial Review: CIV-2024-404-300 Dunstan v North Shore District Court & Ors (Unopposed- before Justice Brewer).
“Please advise Ms Dunstan that we have only the written record of what took place and a copy should be provided to her”.- Judge Andree Wiltens. 14/6/2023
Still with registry staff concealing evidence:
From: Clarke, Phil <Phil.Clarke@justice.govt.nz> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 07:17:14 +1300 Subject: RE: OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR FORMAL DECISION CRI 2018-043-002111 Tanya Dunstan
Hi Tanya,
2. CRI 2019-092-006687 24 June 2019
"No evidence offered- Dismissed" Judge Fielding 14 Jan 2020:
On 10 April 2024- Justice Jagose refused to grant a declaration and remit proceedings stating, that he as a high court judge is not bound by the precedent decision [2022] NZCA477]. Case law of lawyer charged for criminal offending:
1. Kiri Allan
2. Golriz Ghahraman
Recommended by LinkedIn
(e) It is erroneous to allege any judge is “immune from suit…” Case law of judges being held personally liable: Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 Further private prosecution against Antony Mahon for additional criminal offending is awaiting leave: 2023-404-002593 Dunstan V Mahon JR
(f) evidenced in para 6 of this submission- bound by [2020] NZHC 2956
Evidence of Judicial misconduct and discrimination amounting to a mass miscarriage of justice is evident with Toogood Js unlawful s166 order “set aside” by COA on 14/02/2023 under CA452/2022. A declaration should have been made this breached natural justice and exceeded jurisdiction with no end date. Precedent for declarations of breach of natural justice [2022]NZHC 3389 Deliu v Auckland Court and Attorney General issued 13 December 2022 Justice Campbell- para [118]
[118] I make a declaration that, by taking 19 months to make a decision on the request in Mr Deliu’s 19 July 2020 memorandum, the District Court breached Mr Deliu’s right to natural justice in s 27 of the BORA.
The abuse of the s166 order to obstruct all proceedings is evidenced in tab 3 of the supplementary bundle of documents filed 5 Jan 2024- Justice Downs CIV 2023-443-00034 (originally accepted for filing by Justice Ellis on 27 July 2023-
In light of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu Ki Waitangi v Waitangi National Trust Board [2023] NZCA 63 I am not, without more, prepared to say that the two proceedings recently filed by Ms Dunstan are plainly an abuse of process and to strike them out under r 5.35B.
That is not, however, to be taken by Ms Dunstan as an indication that the proceedings would not be not liable to be struck out (on application by the defendant/respondent) in the ordinary way. She may, for example, wish to consider that, on the face of it, the proceedings concerning Judge Kelly’s recusal are moot (because, regardless of the grounds on which he has done so, he has recused himself). As well, the Canadian decision on which her tortious claim appears to be based (Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia 2022 ONSC 1303) was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal earlier this month.
Ms Dunstan should also be alive to the risk that, in light of the very significant number of proceedings recently filed by her, s 166 of the Senior Courts Act may soon be in play.- Justice Ellis, 27 July 2023
Obstructed by Churchman J extra-judicially to prevent the summary hearing directed in New Plymouth court in a decision no one asked for that he had no jurisdiction to make:
[12] "There is nothing in the plaintiffs affidavit of 19 July 2023 that justifies her having filed these proceedings in New Plymouth. For the reasons explained by Johnstone J and set out above, the grounds given by the plaintiff in her affidavit of 19 July 2023 for not commencing proceedings in Auckland are baseless.
[13] I therefore direct that these proceedings be transferred to the High Court at Auckland" churchman 13 September 2024
Of Which Justice Downs, of Auckland Court dismissed [the unopposed case] in a minute issued 14 December 2023 in a pro forma email stating:
"I decline leave for Ms Dunstan to continue this case given that she is now banned from conducting cases." This case has no feature to warrant leave."
This is disturbing as it shows the opinion of the Judges is to abuse the "alleged spirit of the order- albeit unlawfully made [extra judicially under sca169(2)- whereby Justice Brewers s166 order states:
[13] So, I emphasise that the order I am about to make does not preclude Ms Dunstan from bringing a claim which discloses merit. Or from continuing any existing proceeding which discloses merit. But, from the date of this Judgment in order to commence or continue any proceeding Ms Dunstan must first obtain the leave of a Judge of this Court.
The most concerning of the mass human rights breaches in obstruction of justice include the decision of justice Brewer to list 8 matters for a call over dated 17 April 2023- not issued until AFTER the s166 order was in motion in a minute dated 11 October 2023 justice Brewer states:
[3] In my minute of 17 April 2023, I declined to make an order under r5.35B because of clear limits placed on the exercise of the powers conferred by the rule by the Court Of Appeal, most recently in Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu Ki Waitangi V Waitangi National Trust Board. In preparing this minute, I was advised that, due to inadvertence, the minute was not promulgated. I attach a copy."
The minute of Justice Brewer dated 17 April 2023 listed the following CIV numbers:
[5] "It is not unusual for a lay litigant, obsessed with perceptions of injustice, to file multiple civil claims in this court in an attempt to overturn the decisions of the lower courts with which she disagrees. Such claims take up a disproportionate share of the judicial; resources and are usually hopeless."
[11] I direct the notices of proceedings be released for service. However, cases 565,566, 568 and 569 are to be case-managed together because I think an order under r10.12 (that they are consolidated or tried at the same time) is likely. The cases all have their origins in the same series of events."
Important to note- to date not one of those 8 matters directed to be heard at least at a call over have ever had the notices of the cases issued by the Auckland Court registry- nor any call overs scheduled.
There can be no question as to whether justice Brewer exceeded his jurisdiction under Senior Court Act s169 (2) regarding:
169 Procedure and appeals relating to section 166 orders
(2) Only the Attorney-General may apply for a general order.
As justice Brewer states in the decision:
[15] I make a general order restraining Ms Dunstan from commencing or continuing civil proceedings in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and in the District Court (including the Family Court) without first obtaining leave of a Judge of this Court.
Legal grounds relied on in these proceeding include the Senior Court Act 2016, s166(7), s167(2) s169(2), s8, s12, s148, Court Of Appeal Rules r46, r48(6), r21, r53, Human Rights Act 1993, s21, s66, NZBORA 1990, s9, s14, s18, s19, s23, s24, s27, GUIDELINES FOR JUDICIAL CONDUCT 2019. New precedents for the court to consider now include: [2022] NZSC 114, CA259/2024 [2024] NZCA 160 and CA261/2024, Baker v Hodder [2018] NZSC 78, [2019] 1 NZLR 94 at [33]; and Thornley v Ford [2024] NZCA154
Victim of Family Courts and obstruction to Justice, Truth and Human Rights
7moAnyone interested in class action